April 21, 2008
History-Making in the Big Apple (Allen & Chavous)
As the churn and swirl of media coverage from the Eliot Spitzer scandal fade from memory, people across the nation are making the acquaintance of a new governor who will surely make history. That's because David Paterson, New York's new governor, has faced a significant obstacle in his ascent to power.
And no, we're not talking about that fact that he'll be only the third African-American governor in American history. We're not pointing out that he grew up in poverty. We're not even referring to the fact that the governor is legally blind. No doubt you've read all that already.
The history-making significant obstacle that Paterson overcame to lead one of our nation's biggest states has received almost no news coverage or public discussion. Yet it sets him apart from so many others.
More than his race, background or any physical feature, Governor Paterson stands out nationally as a liberal African-American Democrat who strongly supports the rights of parents to choose the best school for their children. That such a specimen exists will surely flummox the leaders of teachers unions and other school choice opponents everywhere, but in the Empire State he doesn't just exist, he's about to thrive.
By every account - from Republicans, Democrats and all others in a position to know - Paterson is affable, intelligent and possessed of a knack for bringing people together even when their ideologies clash. These skills will suit him well if he adds his career-long crusade for schoolchildren to his priorities as governor.
As a New York state senator, Paterson was the key elected official ensuring the state lifted its cap on charter schools. In the face of fierce opposition from purveyors of the status quo, Paterson was steadfast in his resolve to bring educational opportunity to New York children.
Although the ranks of Democrats who support real educational opportunities for kids are finally growing, the great party of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR is still dominated by the one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to education. So it's good news that someone who wants to help parents choose the best learning environment now has the platform to make it happen.
As Paterson rose from minority leader of the New York Senate to lieutenant governor and now governor, he championed the state's school choice movement by lifting the cap on charters and unabashedly speaking out for the kind of educational reform that would give kids in all corners of his state a fair shake and a fair shot at success. Perhaps because of his strength of character and reputation for tenacity, he was able to bypass the road most often taken by reform-minded leaders: suppressing their support of bold education interventions when the union bosses come knocking.
David Paterson understands that children - like those who grew up around him in Harlem - face the most dismal prospects for life when they are uneducated. He knows that schools have perpetuated a status quo mentality and poor kids and children of color in particular, face an uphill battle in all too many communities. Schools of choice - whether charters or private schools - are fundamental to improving education.
While we welcome the opportunities for African-Americans that the historic candidacy of Barack Obama brings, advancing one person to high office can only do so much. For African-Americans to truly assume the mantle of leadership in America, there must be a diversity of thought and advocacy on the issue that matters most to the children of our cities - public education. And when more Democrat and African-American leaders begin to advocate for more choices and better chances, Governor David Paterson will begin to have some well-deserved company.
###
Jeanne Allen, a Republican, is President of the Center for Education Reform. Kevin P. Chavous, a former District of Columbia Councilmember, chairs Democrats for Education Reform.
Posted by Edspresso at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)April 11, 2008
Charters: Positive Alternative (Fred Crawford)
In today's world, education is the key to one's future. The outlook could be bleak according to the researchers of Educational Testing Services (ETS). A report from ETS's Policy Information Center states that, unless we act now, the "convergence of three powerful socioeconomic forces are changing our nation's future: substantial disparities in skill levels (reading and math); seismic economic changes (widening wage gaps); and sweeping demographic shifts (less education, lower skills)."
Fortunately, South Carolina students today do have some control over their futures. Students can take action on two of these three forces by choosing a school that meets their learning needs, increases their skill level, and offers academic guidance. Deciding on which school to attend may also affect career choices and narrow the wage gap, as well. The South Carolina public education system offers two types of public school choices: traditional and charter.
Traditional and charter public schools are funded by local, state, and federal moneys, except that public charter schools do not receive funding for facilities, transportation and often food services. Neither traditional nor charter public schools can charge tuition or may "pick and choose" their students. Traditional public schools are controlled by a central local governmental authority such as a district school board.
Most traditional public schools operate within a defined attendance area, and may require an application if students enroll outside the defined perimeter. Some traditional school systems also offer opportunities in magnet and alternative schools that exist outside zoned school boundaries. They usually have a special program to offer which makes them an option for some students. Magnet schools are not autonomous, remain part of the bureaucracy of the traditional school system and usually are highly selective of students. All traditional schools are required to comply with district and state regulations. For example, the state mandates the standardization for core curriculum and prescribes textbooks for these schools.
The charter school is a public school of choice operated by an independent board of directors that is focused on one school. Public charter schools operate with freedom from many of the state regulations that apply to traditional public schools. The "charter" establishing each such school is a performance contract with the sponsoring school district detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of academic assessment, and ways to measure success. In exchange for freedom from local and state regulations, charter operators must promise to fulfill a set of academic and operational goals laid out in their charter. A charter school's intentions are based on three principles -- autonomy, choice, and accountability.
Like traditional schools, public charter schools are required to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined by The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, the main federal law affecting public education. In addition to meeting AYP, charter schools are evaluated by their sponsoring district on how well they meet the goals established in their charter and how well they manage the fiscal and operational responsibilities entrusted to them. If they fail to deliver, they are closed.
NCLB supports the growth of more independent public charter schools. They can focus on a specialized curriculum, serve a special student population, and use progressive or traditional approaches. The first charter school in the United States was founded in 1992 and was renewed upon demonstrating success. The Center for Education Reform cites over 60 studies showing public charter schools accomplishing their goals and reports that 69 percent of independent public charter schools have waiting lists. South Carolina has 31 charter schools currently in operation.
South Carolina parents and students do have educational choice. Furthermore, federal law requires that states and local school districts provide information to help parents make informed educational choices for their children. To ensure successful futures for South Carolina students, every student and parent must have public school choice with options that work -- "one student at a time."
Originally published at greenvilleonline.com. Fred Crawford is principal of Greenville Tech Charter High School.
Posted by Edspresso at 09:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)April 07, 2008
Sticker Shock
In yesterday's Washington Post, Andrew Coulson laid out full school choice as an educationally and fiscally compelling option for DC's public school students who are currently being undereducated - to the tune of $24,600/pupil - by a district "bureaucracy so Byzantine it would give Rube Goldberg an aneurysm." He looks at the ledger more closely on the Cato blog, noting that, ultimately, "the real cost of this dysfunctional system is not measured in dollars and cents but in the hopes and futures it has destroyed."
Posted by Edspresso at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)March 19, 2008
Living in a Post-National Math Panel World (Barry Garelick)
The British mathematician J. E. Littlewood once began a math class for freshmen with the following statement: "I've been giving this lecture to first-year classes for over twenty-five years. You'd think they would begin to understand it by now."
People involved in the debate about how math is best taught in grades K-12, must feel a bit like Littlewood in front of yet another first year class. Every year as objectionable math programs are introduced into schools, parents are alarmed at what isn't being taught. The new "first-year class" of parents is then indoctrinated into what has come to be known as the math wars as the veterans - mathematicians, frustrated teachers, experienced parents, and pundits - start the laborious process of explanation once more.
It was therefore a watershed event when the President's National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMP) held its final meeting on March 13, 2008 and voted unanimously to approve its report: Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
Unlike Littlewood addressing his perpetual first-year students, the report assumes that the class has actually begun to understand it by now and moves on. It does so quickly and efficiently: "[T]he system that translates mathematical knowledge into value and ability for the next generation - is broken and must be fixed. This is not a conclusion about teachers or school administrators, or textbooks or universities or any other single element of the system. It is about how the many parts do not now work together to achieve a result worthy of this country's values and ambitions."
The report provides benchmarks for the critical foundations of algebra, setting out grade level expectations of mastery for fluency with whole numbers, fluency with fractions, and geometry and measurement. It also provides recommendations for the major topics of an algebra class.
It assumes that most readers have taken that first year class in "math wars", and can pick up on the nuances. For example, parents whose children have suffered through programs like Everyday Mathematics or Investigations in Number, Data and Space or other programs that grew out of grants from the Education and Human Resources Division of the National Science Foundation (NSF-EHR), know perfectly well what the following statement is about: "A focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided." Parents and others have heard the philosophy about "if they don't learn it now, they'll learn it later" - otherwise known as "spiraling". They've seen the results and they don't fall for the line. In a similar vein, parents (and teachers) who don't fall for alternative and "student-invented" algorithms will be glad that the report prescribed the "standard" arithmetic algorithms, a topic on which the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has looked the other way, even in the Focal Points, and something the NSF-EHR-engineered programs don't even mention, let alone require.
When the report talks about the paucity of valid research on instructional practices, those who have taken the first-year class nod knowingly, recalling the countless times they have heard that "research shows" what they know not to be true. The report offers this statement: "Instructional practice should be informed by high-quality research, when available, and by the best professional judgment and experience of accomplished classroom teachers. High-quality research does not support the contention that instruction should be either entirely 'student-centered' or 'teacher-directed.' Research indicates that some forms of particular instructional practices can have a positive impact under specified conditions." This statement will no doubt be read many ways. Teachers who have bought into many of the NSF-EHR-flavored math programs will say that they use a "balanced approach" to teaching, even though they may use programs that favor a "student-centered" approach. There are also teachers who maintain a truly balanced approach and who, while rejecting the discovery-oriented and textbook-less programs being foisted on schools across the country, are admonished by their administrators to do as they are told.
I attended the final meeting of the NMP. It was held at the Longfellow Middle School, where one of the panelists, Vern Williams, teaches math. Some statements of individual panelists stand out. Deborah Ball, Dean of the School of Education at University of Michigan stated she would be disappointed if the report were reduced to yet another math wars story, and people look for areas of disagreement, and reduce it to simplistic slogans. (I wonder then if she is disappointed in a statement by Steven Rasmussen, publisher of Key Curriculum Press, which publishes math textbooks in which he said "This report is biased in favor of teaching arithmetic and not [modern] mathematics...and it's biased in favor of procedures and not applied skill." The statement, while of the type Ms. Ball was deploring, was on the side of the quarrel she probably didn't have in mind.)
David Geary, a cognitive developmental psychologist at University of Missouri, said that the reason a panel such as NMP was formed was because of the failure of schools of education to do what the country wants: Train teachers using research-based techniques, rather than running a playground for untested methods. Schools of education should be held accountable for their work, he said.
Vern Williams noted the current state of affairs in math education in which correct answers have been deemed over-rated and algebra has been redefined to include statistics and pattern recognition. He expressed his hopes that as a result of the NMP report teachers will feel it is once again crucial to consider content - and correct answers.
During a break in the meeting, however, an event occurred which to my mind simultaneously underscored and transcended the importance of NMP's report. Williams' 8th grade algebra class which had assembled at the back of the gym gathered, in rock fan fashion, around Hung-Hsi Wu - a panelist and math professor from Berkeley - to get his autograph and take pictures.
"I guess this shows that kids can get excited about math without sitting in groups doing projects and using math textbooks that look like video games," Williams said.
I hope for the best in this post-NMP world.
Barry Garelick is an analyst for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. He is a national advisor to NYC HOLD, an education advocacy organization that addresses mathematics education in schools throughout the United States.
Posted by Featured Guest at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)February 05, 2008
On Governors, Education and Leadership - For a Change
How is it that governors - who have nearly ultimate power to change education laws for the better - spend most of the education space in their State of the State addresses year after year touting money as their "unique" answer to improving education in their state?
A review of Education Week's digest of these traditional speeches shows that, regardless of party or state, almost all the nation's chief executives punt to business-as-usual when talking about this most fundamental of issues.
The notable exception this year seems to be Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who announced he would seek to implement many of the recommendations of his Committee on Education Excellence, including the novel ideas of allowing non-traditional entities to enter the teacher-preparation market and pursuing new routes to earning a teacher credential. These recommendations won him the headline from Ed Week that the Gov "backs off planned 'year of education'" - "back off," I suppose, because he didn't offer the proverbial chicken in every education pot. Thus, the establishment believes, he has backed off his dedication to schools.
It all depends on how you look it.
Now the Gubernator, who has never been one to take the establishment too seriously, could be like his New Jersey colleague Jon Corzine, whose entire education focus is on money, despite his state, already among the top education spenders in the nation at $12,252 per student, being home to some of the most pathetic school systems in the world. Or he could be like the purportedly progressive Tim Kaine of Virginia, who rededicated himself to statewide pre-school, but who presides over one of the weakest charter states in the nation, ignoring for the second year now a reform that is much in-demand and, even more importantly, needed in the state. Or he could be like Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania who wants to debate how to give more funds to districts and how to create more than one end-of-school test for 12th graders, to ensure that everyone can graduate, albeit by bending standards.
Scores of policy groups and university researchers have concluded that within the public education system the reforms with the most impact focus on governance. Pushing authority and accountability down to the school district level remains one of the most promising and well-researched policy prescriptions. It cuts out the middlemen in a significant way, and with state standards and assessments still in place, allows educators to drive change locally, while still being accountable to at the state level. The ultimate implementation of local control are those policies that actually push authority to the family level by offering parents multiple educational offerings from which to choose. For education experts including AEI's Rick Hess, University of Washington's Paul Hill and dozens of others, these ideas seem to be all but a fait accompli in forums across the nation. But no governor seems to acknowledge that money woes can become more manageable - and transparent - when such power shifts occur.
A few mayors and their city chiefs of education have tackled variations of this on their own, and implemented partially autonomous school programs. But with labor and contract laws still in place, the full potential of such approaches are not being realized anywhere.
One need not be an historian to remember how once, not too long ago, there were governors who advocated in their annual addresses for fundamental changes, rather than just selling their audiences a laundry list of superficial offerings as if they were peddling their wares at the local market.
There once were governors, and a handful of state chiefs, who truly sought to improve schools and who dared to challenge the status quo to do so. Michigan's John Engler, Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson, Delaware's Tom Carper are among those who didn't use their annual state addresses to pander, but to implore legislator and citizens to shake off the comfort of the familiar, however inadequate, in favor of more challenging and more responsive schools.
They were among the first to embrace equitable (but not unaccountable) spending, to ensure standards - and consequences for those not meeting them - were in place, and to embrace school options for families, enacting strong charter laws and even low-income choice scholarship programs.
Others, like Tom Kean in New Jersey, pushed for alternative routes to certification, the beneficiaries of which now account for almost half of the Garden State's teaching force.
The gradual pendulum swing in attitudes of state leaders was stunning. On the heels of governors pulling together at national summits in the late 80s and early 90s (bipartisan gatherings organized first under Bush 1 and then under Clinton) there was a slow but strong shift to recognizing that when most children aren't learning well we're in crisis, and there were successful efforts to address that crisis. Governors in Colorado, Massachusetts and Virginia were among the earliest adopters of high standards and strong assessments tied to those standards. (Sadly these have slowly been chipped away at since, as people without a memory for why they were implemented in the first place, or understanding of the positive impact they've had, have assumed various positions of authority and turned their attention to special interests' demands rather than communities' educational needs.)
The 90s also saw the enactment of new charter laws, and an attempt by state leaders to depart from the status quo by putting teacher quality and the whole notion of how public education is structured and delivered on the table to get beyond the standard "more money" solutions.
Eventually the fundamental conversation began to change, and quality education - not money - became the common denominator of proposals across most state and even from some federal leaders. Policymakers who still led with "more money is the answer" were considered ineffective and all but ignored. Reforms took hold across ideological lines, and it all seemed to culminate in the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, where, despite state and local concerns, there was a sense of unanimity that Congress should join the accountability movement and allow parents to have (albeit limited) options when their children are not well served by the system.
NCLB seemed to recognize the previous 15 years of state level reform efforts - even if it's somewhat nationalistic. But since that time, the pendulum seems to have swung almost all the way back to pre-90s levels of ennui. Money once again is embraced as the answer. Money for pre-school, money for teachers, money for buildings, money for tests. Money.
There seems to be amnesia about what happens what states allocate money in the absence of true reform. In short, bureaucracies grow, creating regulations - and pet programs with reassuringly child-centric sounding titles - that suck up the money, but very little, either in the way of actual improvements, or even funding, ever actually really reaches the classroom.
In that classroom, teachers with outdated credentials that do not demonstrate subject-area knowledge preside over bland curricula, and in the schools in which they teach, their performance is rarely measured, while number of years teaching and degrees earned determine their salary. The pool of teachers remains smaller than it needs to be because of a fixation on input-based credentials, necessitating the kind of changes the California Governor recommended.
One would not know that by reading this year's State of the State addresses of the nation's chief executives. Making kids go to school earlier, keeping them longer, lowering graduation standards and raising higher education subsidies (despite the enormous number of remedial courses needed there to make up for primary education failures) are once again the norm in budget proposals.
When it comes to families, options outside of the district system that may better meet individual children's needs still only serve around two percent of all public school students; in most school systems, children are captive attendants at the neighborhood school, regardless of how well, or if, that school meets their needs. A recent bi-partisan legislative push by Georgia legislators to give children more opportunities, by strengthening its charter law with the establishment of an independent authorizing body beyond the local school board, has been privately praised by the Governor, but not publicly pushed. The lack of a push for out-of-the- box solutions that work is a major difference between state execs today and those of just a few years ago. In those days, drawing school board opposition might be seen as a badge of honor, while engendering parental and business support for reform were the keys to political longevity.
It seems like all the conversation and activity surrounding real reform have escaped some of those in leadership, who instead turn to simple bandaids steeped in what has once again become the prevailing 'conventional wisdom' : money must be the problem, money must be the answer.
The states of 2008 feel more like 1984. Time for a change.
Posted by Jeanne Allen at 03:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)January 25, 2008
Solutions: Educating Our Children
Forbes reaches out to 20 leaders from industry, public policy and education to offer their vision for putting American education and American students back on sound global footing.
Jeanne Allen, President, Center for Education Reform.
Bryan Baker, Thought Leader and Enterprise Consultant for Xerox Global Services
Craig Barrett, Chairman, Intel Corp.
Todd Bradley, Executive VP, Personal Systems Group, Hewlett Packard
Cynthia G. Brown, Director of Education Policy, Center for American Progress
John Chambers, Chairman and CEO, Cisco
Clayton M. Christensen, Co-founder, Innosight Institute
Senator Michael Enzi , Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Colonel Dean M. Esserman, Chief of Police, City of Providence, RI
Mike Feinberg, Co-founder, KIPP charter schools
Bill Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Taylor W. Lawrence, Vice President, Research of Raytheon
Stanley Litow, President, IBM International Foundation
Rep. Howard McKeon, Senior Republican, House Education and Labor Committee
Rep. George Miller, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
Jim Miller, Executive VP, Cadence Design Systems
Michele Rhee, Chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools
Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education
Chris Whittle, Founder, Chairman of Edison Schools
Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize 2006, Founder of Grameen Bank
Posted by Edspresso at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)January 17, 2008
NOW is the Time
"Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."
- Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream
Now is the time to put the improvement of schools over and above the protection of the system. Now is the time to give parents strong choices instead of weak platitudes. Now is the time to challenge all children to excel, rather than protect any teacher who doesn't.
Posted by Edspresso at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)December 20, 2007
The BLOB-Grinches Who Thought They Could Stop Reform From Coming
All the parents and teachers they wanted reform.
They looked for solutions to break from the norm.
They wanted things better, that's why they were fighting,
To make sure their kids would learn reading and writing
And science and math and history too
For everyone's children, not just a few.
But the Blob and its grinches, they hated reform.
"Imagine," they sniffed " trying to break from the norm."
Standards, and charters, and school choice and such
This ed-reform business is much, much too much.
Who are they, these people, this reform-minded crew
Who think they know better than us what to do?
We'll fix them,
We'll teach them,
We'll show them who's boss.
We'll make doubly sure that they suffer a loss.
We'll stop all their harping and carping and cries
We'll tell all the people their numbers are lies.
We'll say that they're wrong And without hesitation,
We'll say that they're out
To destroy education.
Oh, we'll offer solutions - the people will buy it,
All we will need say is, " It won't hurt to try it."
Whole language, new math,
And lots of things pending
(Which, of course, will require more billions in spending.)
And for those who ask questions or say it's a waste,
With great condescension, they'll be put in their place.
We'll stop the reformers, we'll stop them, we will,
Because after all,
We're the kings of the Hill.
So the Blob and it's grinches
Embarked on their task
To make sure that all things reform finished last.
But the parents and teachers and grandparents too,
Went on with their work, they knew what to do.
The Blob might have money and power and might.
But that didn't mean that they knew what was right.
And no matter the odds, or how long it might take,
The reformers were steadfast… a difference they'd make.
They wouldn't be quiet
And they wouldn't give in
And whenever they lost, they would just start again.
They offered suggestions and wrote legislation
And some ran for office, (to the Blob's consternation).
We'll stop these reformers the Blob-grinches blustered
And what we can't stop we will just filibuster.
We'll do all we can, oh we've got a few tricks,
After all it's our business to play politics.
Against our opponents we'll spend, spend galore.
And for those who are with us, we'll spend even more.
And when it was over the Blob danced with glee
Their efforts had let to a great victory.
They'd shown the reformers, and now they could say
"Just take your reforms, now take them away."
But the parents and teachers and grandparents too,
Just smiled at the Blob, because everyone knew:
That for all of its millions and for all of its might,
The Blob had not managed to carry the fight.
No matter the money and time overspent
No matter how much their support they had lent
In state after state they had failed to defeat
The education reformers they said they would beat.
And when it was over the fact remained still,
That they couldn't be really the King of the hill.
And for all of their ranting and raving and storm
They've really done nothing to stop ed-reform.
Our thanks to the CER alum who penned this ed-reform anthem for all the families and activists out in Whoville fighting the good fight to make schools work better for all children.
Posted by edspresso at 06:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)November 30, 2007
Traditional Math Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry (Barry Garelick)
Last year at a meeting of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (a Presidential appointed panel charged with drafting recommendations on how best to prepare students for algebra), a woman named Sherry Fraser read a statement into the public record which began as follows:
"How many of you remember your high school algebra? Close your eyes and imagine your algebra class. Do you see students sitting in rows, listening to a teacher at the front of the room, writing on the chalkboard and demonstrating how to solve problems? Do you remember how boring and mindless it was? Research has shown this type of instruction to be largely ineffective." (Fraser, 2006).
Such statement falls in the category of "Traditional math doesn't work" or "The old way of teaching math was a mass failure," heard early and often at school board meetings or other forums. I am always puzzled by these statements but Sherry's was particularly vexing given that 1) I was not bored in my algebra classes, and 2) Sherry, like me, ended up majoring in math. So I contacted Sherry and asked what the research was that showed such methods to be "largely ineffective". Sherry is co-director of a high school math text/curricula called IMP, developed in the early 90's through grants from the NSF, totaling $11.6 million, to San Francisco State University. She replied to me in an email that she is a "firm believer in people doing their own research" and added that I wouldn't have any trouble finding sources to confirm her statements. I have assumed she is just trying to be helpful by having me discover the answer myself, rather than just tell me the answer to my question. I have been a good student; here's what my research shows:
From the 1940's to the mid 1960's, at a time when math and other subjects were taught in the traditional manner, scores in all subjects on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills increased steadily. From 1965 to the mid-70's there was a dramatic decline, and then scores increased again until 1990 when they reached an all-time high. Scores stayed relatively stable in the 90's.
Conclusion No. 1: During the 40's through the mid 60's, something was working. And whatever was working, certainly wasn't failing.
Those who decry traditional math generally advocate its reform, and promote the concept of discovery learning. Students supposedly discover what they need to know by being given "real life" problems, frequently without being given the procedures or the mastery of skills necessary to solve them. The reform approach is at the heart of a series of math texts funded through grants from the Education and Human Resources Division of National Science Foundation and based on standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
Long before NCTM's release of its standards in 1989, math reformers of the 1920's through the 1950's had their say in how math should be taught. William A. Brownell, spoken well of by NCTM and various luminaries in today's reform movement, was one of the key reformers of the early twentieth century and promoted what he called meaningful learning; i.e., teaching mathematics as a process, rather than a series of end products of isolated facts and procedures to be committed to memory.
If the above sounds like what the reformers are talking about today, it is because - like the complaints about education in general through the years - the complaints levied against how mathematics is taught have been perennial. What is often not mentioned when these complaints are replayed is 1) that there have also been perennial solutions and 2) some of these solutions have actually been effective.
The traditional math from the 40's to mid-60's was certainly not perfect. Also, it cannot be denied that in spite of the effort made in the texts to provide meaning to the student, some teachers did not follow the texts and insisted on a Thorndike-like approach that relied on rote memorization and math problems isolated from word problems. But neither the reformers nor the mathematicians of those times asked the teachers to teach math that way. Bad teaching was incidental to and independent of the textbooks used and the philosophy put forth by that era's reformers.
Conclusion Number 2: Yesterday’s reformers sought the same goals as today’s reformers, except their textbooks actually contained explanations.
During the era of test score decline, many social issues emerged which may account for the downslide, such as increased drug use in the mid-60's, permissiveness, increase in divorces and single family homes, and changes in the demographics of schools. Also, starting in the mid-60's, many of the teachers of the older generation retired, making way for the newer cadre of reinvented John Deweys from the education schools.
The difference between traditional and present-day teaching is striking. The emphasis is now on big concepts. These come at the expense of learning and mastering the basics. Getting the right answer no longer matters. In theory, it is student-centered inquiry-based learning. In practice it has become teacher-centered omission of instruction. With the educational zeitgeist having been planted and taken root, the development of the NCTM standards in 1989 were an extension of a long progression. To top it all off, the reform approach to teaching math is being taught in education schools, thus providing future teachers with "work-arounds" to those few math textbooks that actually have merit.
Conclusion No. 3: While bad teaching was incidental to the traditional method in earlier days, it has now become an inherent part of how most math is taught today.
I hope my efforts provide something that Sherry Fraser can cite.
The above is taken from a 3-part article entitled "It Works for Me: An Exploration of Traditional Math," published here at EdNews.org.
Barry Garelick is an analyst for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. He is a national advisor to NYC HOLD, an education advocacy organization that addresses mathematics education in schools throughout the United States.
Posted by edspresso at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)November 21, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving
 We celebrate with gratitude the freedoms that make this country great, and pray for a future in which all America families enjoy the freedom to choose the education that is best for their child. We'll be rejoining the Daily Grind next Monday. In the meantime, don't let the turkeys get you down! |
November 14, 2007
Carnival of Education #145
Welcome to Edspresso's first foray onto the Education Carnival Midway. With apologies to Alex Trebek (my mom's favorite TV celebrity, but that's a story for another time), and a nod to the good efforts of dedicated educators and reformers to keep kids out of academic jeopardy, The Answer Is:
Learning at Home calls for a moratorium on lectures On Academics and the S Word.
Question: Why does successful homeschooling strike fear into the hearts of the eduBLOB (when they're not trying to denigrate it)?
Friends of Dave asks, hopefully, Are We Finally Getting a Sense of Urgency?
Question: How many failed children does it take to change an education system?
EduWonk looks at Peer Reviewed, Or If Rick Kahlenberg Had A Nuclear Bomb...
Question: How many good teachers does it take to get rid of a bad teacher?
So You Want To Teach? offers 65 Things You Should Do Right Now To Avoid Burnout.
Question: How many 'mental health' days does it take to clear out a teachers' lounge?
Schools for Tomorrow blogs on the wisdom and banality of Jonathan Kozol.
Question: What's more important, rhetoric or results?
When up against Virtual Reality the system thinks Parents are the Problem.
Question: Why does successful virtual schooling strike fear into the hearts of the eduBLOB (when they're not trying to shift the blame)?
Instructify lays out Three Rules for Advocating School Technology.
Question: What are the system’s real goals?
In Practice it must be asked, Does Using Technology Add Value To The Classroom?
Question: What's the difference between teacher, technology, and tool?
Under Assault: Teaching in NYC takes aim at WMDs at the Board of Education.
Question: Why does successful charter schooling strike fear into the hearts of the eduBLOB (when they're not trying to co-opt it)?
EdNews.org declares It Works for Me: An Exploration of "Traditional Math" Part 1.
Question: When did the education of children become subordinate to the entertainment of children?
Consent Of The Governed takes on the notion of Universal Preschool - Institutionalizing 3,4 and 5 Year Olds.
Question: Will more money and more time in mean more educated students out?
Joanne Jacobs notes that fast Handwriting matters.
Question: Why doesn't legibility?
Eduwonkette takes issue with methodology in Is this a wake-up call for the people who work there? You betcha.
Question: Should teachers at 'F' schools just go back to sleep?
Principled Discovery looks at the motivation for and effect of Banning Huckleberry Finn.
Question: Just how expensive is ignorance?
NYC Educator cries from the balcony Tony-O, Tony-O, Wherefore Art Thou, Tony-O?
Question: Would a rogue by any other name smell as sweet?
Meanwhile, Intercepts wonders: Tony Soprano, Pat Tornillo or Napoleon Bonaparte?
Question: What do you call it when you pay an individual additional money to get the result you want?
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this week's Carnival of Education. If you are interested in raising the big tent in your backyard, please contact the Education Wonks at owlshome [at] earthlink [dot] net. Next week's Carnival will be hosted by NYC Educator. Submit your favorite education blog entries via the submission form. Send in your submissions by 11:59PM EST on Tuesday, November 20th.
Posted by Edspresso at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)November 07, 2007
Utah School Choice Referendum has Unions Dancing in their Pants
While this is certainly a blow for families in Utah for whom the status quo is not good enough, the cold hard truth is that this initiative’s fate had nothing to do with school choice and whether or not it is right, good or popular.
A good friend of ours deeply involved with the politics of education reform says, “If you have 30 minutes to sit down with each voter – like you would with a legislator – you can make a strong case for why these reforms are important. But with voters, it’s all about five-second sound bites. The ‘this destroys public schools’ argument, no matter how bogus, rings clearer in voters minds than anything reformers can come up with.”
Every year, parents all over the country have a choice of where to send their kids to school. Every year, millions of parents (and that number is growing) choose something other than the traditional public school to school to which their family is assigned.
The proof that Americans -- and parents specifically -- want choice is incontrovertible.
But Americans are skittish about making policy at the ballot box. While they support the right to make choices for themselves, they are reluctant to do that for others. They entrust that job to their elected representatives – the very legislators who established the Utah voucher program in the first place.
Unfortunately, the parents and families working together at a grassroots level to support this program were no match for the tens of millions of dollars that poured into Utah from teachers’ unions across the country. Voucher opponents took this fight to a national level, spending $144 for every teacher in Utah to stop the program. And because PAC contributions in the Utah teachers’ union is significantly down, much funding came from the National Education Association, headquarters in Washington, D.C.
In contrast, Parents for Choice in Education raised 84 percent of their campaign funding locally in Utah. Working hard at the grassroots level, this powerful group of parents held their own against an indestructible union with deep pockets.
This defeat is a lesson in American government and the power of campaign funding, not a statement on school choice. And the victims of this defeat are the children and families who saw this program as a way to escape the educational straightjacket of failing public schools.
October 29, 2007
Going Broke for "Free" Public Schools
Families in California and across the country are struggling to pay for homes near what they think are "good" public schools. Many of these "house-poor" families, who spend more than 35 percent of their incomes on housing, are getting a lot less than they bargained for.
Their ranks have quadrupled in just one generation, and home prices for families with school-age children are also growing three times faster than other families. The problem is especially acute in the Golden State, whose cities litter the top-100 list of highest housing foreclosure rates. With seven high-foreclosure cities each on the list, Florida, New York, and Texas are a distant second to California's dirty dozen, which includes top-ranked Stockton, Sacramento (#5), San Diego (#23), Los Angeles/Long Beach (#29), Orange (#45), and San Francisco (#78).
What drives many families to stretch their budgets to the breaking point is desperation to get their children into decent schools. Authors of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi explain that "when a family buys a house, it buys much more than shelter from the rain. It also buys a public-school system."
Countless California families are moving to affluent suburbs so their children can attend public schools touted as outstanding by district superintendents, real-estate agents, local and state departments of education. But just how good are those schools? As a new PRI book puts it: Not as Good as You Think: Why the Middle Class Needs School Choice.
Many parents and their elected officials will be shocked to learn that there are hundreds of affluent, underperforming public schools throughout the Golden State in areas with median home prices exceeding $1 million.
In fact, at more than one in 10 affluent California public schools, a majority of students in at least one grade score below proficiency in English or math. These are schools where less than one third of students are poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and few students are English language learners or have disabilities. Most parents have an advanced education, and the overwhelming majority of teachers are certified.
Editorializing on the book, The Wall Street Journal explains, "Many of these schools were located in the Golden State's toniest zip codes, places like Orange County, Silicon Valley and the beach communities of Los Angeles. In areas such as Newport Beach, Capistrano and Huntington Beach, where million-dollar houses are commonplace, researchers found more than a dozen schools where 50 to 80 percent of students weren't proficient in math at their grade level. In one Silicon Valley community where the median home goes for $1.6 million, less than half of 10th and 11th graders scored at or above proficiency on the state English exam."
But California isn't alone. Nationwide, six out of 10 public school fourth and eighth graders who are not poor score below proficiency in math and reading.
For too long families in California and across the country have been led to believe that poor quality schools are an inner-city problem plaguing low-income parents who cannot afford to move near supposedly superior suburban schools. Given the current housing market, middle-income families may now find themselves similarly trapped in homes they can barely afford to keep and cannot afford to sell at a loss - all for schools that fail to deliver.
The cost of foreclosures on a single city block to local agencies and nearby property owners who suffer diminished property values and home equity is an estimated $250,000. The cost of a sub-standard education is incalculable. There is a remedy for both.
Legislators should end the current monopoly system of assigned public schooling and put all parents - regardless of income or address -in charge of their children's education dollars. "In reality," says the Wall Street Journal, "[middle-income] families would benefit from vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools and other educational options as surely as the inner-city single mom."
Such programs would expand educational opportunities without putting parents - and states - in the poorhouse.
Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., is Education Studies Senior Policy Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento, and co-author with Lance T. Izumi and Rachel S. Chaney of Not as Good as You Think: Why the Middle Class Needs School Choice.
Posted by Featured Guest at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)October 23, 2007
Boo-racracy
Aren't they scary?
September 13, 2007
Outraged Charter Parents and Teachers School CA Speaker Núñez
Embarassed legislators have backed down under charter parents’ and teachers’ show of strength. When the State played politics with charter laws, parents and teachers fought back—and won.
Fed up with special-interest politics masquerading as “local control,” hundreds of Los Angeles parents and teachers recently rallied against Sacramento’s latest assault on charter schools.
In recent years, opponents have sought to slow, if not stop, the expansion of charter schools in California. Leading the nation with more than 600 public charter schools, California charters are educating nearly a quarter of a million students. The Governor’s veto pen has thwarted them thus far, so now charter foes are playing brinkmanship … and charter school parents and teachers called them on it.
The California Assembly slashed facilities support for charter schools serving high-poverty students to less than half of full funding, but they didn’t stop there. Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles) then added a prohibition against the State Board of Education authorizing statewide charter schools, a move long-pushed by teachers’ union bosses, at a time when public demand for charters couldn’t be higher. That’s when the Fabian bill turned Faustian.
Under the cover of night, Núñez combined the charter ban and the funding cuts into a “trailer bill,” Senate Bill 92. To preserve statewide charter schools—critical in areas like the Los Angeles Unified School District, where 300,000 students attend failing schools— Governor Schwarzenegger intended to veto the trailer bill, and with it the funding crumbs from the Assembly table.
This diabolical deal would have spelled disaster either way: Hurt thousands of poor charter schoolchildren now by limiting facilities money, or deny educational opportunities to hundreds of thousands of them later by making hostile district school boards the primary authorizers of new charter schools.
An outpouring of support from charter parents and teachers at a late-August rally in Speaker Núñez’s own district speaks volumes to the power of parents and teachers who demand choice. Without facilities funds “we can’t pay for the best teachers,” said Los Angeles charter school parent Corri Ravere. She was fortunate enough to get her child into View Park Preparatory Charter High School, which is so successful at educating inner-city children its waiting list has swelled to 5,000, “We will fight to the end.” And fight they did.
Although the battle has subsided for now, the power of midnight legislation remains a force to be reckoned with in the future. Without charter schools, thousands of schoolchildren and their teachers would have no alternative to district-run schools that don’t work for them. Students would have to return, but many of their teachers would likely quit. Given the growing concern about teacher shortages, those who purportedly represent California educators should be fostering more attractive teaching environments, not snuffing them out.
California’s district-run schooling monopoly is an increasingly unattractive prospect for teachers. It is the relic of a bygone era that held few employment opportunities for women, historically three-quarters of the teaching workforce. The times, and employment opportunities, have changed, but California’s schooling system founders in a time warp.
A 2005 California Charter Schools Association survey of Los Angeles charter school teachers showed 42 percent of respondents came from LAUSD. Former LAUSD employees represent more than half of charter school staffs at 10 percent of the district’s charter campuses, and eight percent of teachers surveyed came out of retirement specifically to teach at Los Angeles charter schools.
More than one in four charter teachers surveyed nationwide said they would do something else entirely if they could not teach at a charter school. Among non-retiring California teachers, more than half who leave blame job dissatisfaction, compared to only one in three of their peers nationwide. Inadequate support, excessive bureaucracy, a lack of collegiality, and insufficient input under the current district-managed schooling system are the top reasons that California teachers quit.
More than three out of four former California teachers would consider returning to the profession if working conditions were better. Independent, educator-directed schools like charter schools hold great promise for winning such teachers back, as well as improving teacher retention and recruitment rates.
At 82 percent, overall satisfaction rates among teachers in charters across the country are more than three times as high as their district-managed counterparts. An average of two-thirds of U.S. charter school teachers, compared to just one-third of teachers in district-run schools, report high levels of satisfaction with the influence they have over curricula, student discipline, and professional development, as well as school safety, collaboration with colleagues, and their schools’ learning environments.
Fortunately, Speaker Núñez’s Faustian gambit backfired. Instead of embarrassing the Governor, he embarrassed himself and enraged charter school parents and teachers who won’t tolerate dysfunctional, district-run schools without a fight.
Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., is the Education Studies Senior Policy Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento. She is also Visiting Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum in Washington, D.C., and author of the new IWF study Empowering Teachers with Choice: How a Diversified Education System Benefits, Teachers, Students, and America.
August 16, 2007
National Standards: A Hopeless Cause
In yesterday’s Washington Times, Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, declared that it’s high time America had national science standards. “With the No Child Left Behind Act up for renewal,” he wrote, “an essential next step is clear….Revise NCLB to set voluntary nationwide education standards.” But is having national standards really the clear next step toward educational excellence? Not if history or current events has anything to say about it.
Consider recent history. Anyone remember the voluntary national standards debacle of the mid-1990s? You know, when the standards went nowhere politically but created a huge, nationwide controversy? What happened there?
It turns out, Americans are extremely diverse, and not just in terms of ethnicity, religion, or race. We also hold very strong and divergent opinions concerning both what to teach and how to teach our children, even in subjects such as mathematics that nationalizers insist should be the same everywhere and for all people. The result in the mid-1990s was that no one could agree on common standards, and none were implemented.
But what if we could somehow forge a consensus around powerful, rigorous standards that really would challenge our students and schools? Then wouldn’t improvement be guaranteed?
Here’s where current events – in particular, implementation of NCLB – are instructive.
NCLB supporters loudly promise excellence, just as national standards champions would were their policies enacted. But something has fallen apart between NCLB’s promise and reality: It seems that the only way the law is going to accomplish its 100 percent proficiency goal is by states making “proficient” synonymous with, well, “there’s no way that’s proficient!” As the Institute of Education Sciences recently found, not only have most states set their proficiency levels below the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s proficiency threshold, many have actually set them below NAEP’s basic level!
Ah, but isn’t keeping states from weaseling out of real accountability exactly why we need national standards?
In theory, yes, but even if we pass rigorous national standards, they would have to be enforced, and enforcement is something Washington has never done effectively. When push has come to shove, no administration has ever been willing to really “get tough” with the state leaders, education bureaucrats, teacher unions, and other powerful interests who don’t want to be held to high – and difficult to attain – standards.
Heck, the Bush administration is about as dedicated to NCLB as any group can be, but even Secretary Spellings dodges real enforcement of the law. States have been sabotaging NCLB’s school choice, persistently dangerous schools, and other accountability provisions since day one, and yet Spellings declared in a Newshour report just this Tuesday that she chooses “to believe that the people in states are working hard to improve education for their kids. Have we made progress? Have we raised the level of intensity, and the level of rigor, and the level of anxiety for grownups to respond to kids? You bet we have.”
Lest you think this is just a Republican trying to defend her president’s signature domestic accomplishment, recall that NCLB’s predecessor, the Improving America’s Schools Act, was overseen by a Democrat and totally ignored by numerous states. A paralyzing fear of special interests is truly bipartisan. Indeed, the entire forty-plus year history of federal involvement in education has been defined by abundant federal cash, lots of lofty promises, and almost nothing by way of accountability or educational success.
Now, if we were somehow able to enact and enforce rigorous national standards there would still be huge problems – such standards would only make our competition and innovation problems even worse, for instance – but those aren’t issues we even need to address right now. Why? Because as both history and current events make clear, rigorous national standards, at least through Washington, will never, ever, come to be.
Neal McCluskey is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Educational Freedom. Prior to arriving at Cato, McCluskey served in the U.S. Army, taught high school English, and was a freelance reporter covering municipal government and education in suburban New Jersey. Mr. McCluskey is the author of Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education.
July 23, 2007
May 14-18: Robert Enlow vs. Jay Mathews on Vouchers (UPDATED, May 18, 4:43 p.m.)
Jay Mathews touched a nerve last month when he declared that he was "tired of the voucher issue" that enables politicians to "raise money on that issue forever, while in the meantime not doing much for schools." In the real world, he said, vouchers are "too risky, and too inconvenient." To which Robert Enlow responded, "Give me a break." So, picking up where they left off...
Jay Mathews is an education reporter and online columnist with the Washington Post. Robert Enlow is Executive Director of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.
Posted by Featured Guest at 09:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)July 10, 2007
Education in Terms of Social Justice
Place yourself back in First Grade. Given the chance to choose any of the following options for your personal schooling, select the education you would like to receive for the greatest chance of success later in life:
A. Washington, District of Columbia inner city public schools
B. Los Angeles, California inner city public schools
C. Chicago, Illinois inner city public schools
D. none of the above
Was your answer D? According to John Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness,” if those schools are not suitable for you in theory, then they are not suitable for low-income children in practice.
Every child in the inner city public schools has very limited opportunity. What you see is what you get. Think about this multiple choice question from your perspective. You can’t go back and change the place or the time you were born, and because of your environment and your family’s economic and social status, you had absolutely no control over the educational opportunities available to you. This is what Rawls referred to as the “lottery” – economic, social, educational opportunity is a matter of chance; a very small number of people win the lottery, and an unbelievably large number of people lose. While many contest Rawls’ philosophy, it is hugely influential in left-of-center thinking.
For a moment, put yourself behind this “veil of ignorance” in which you cannot determine the school you attend. Without knowing the odds or whether you might end up a Rockefeller or in the slums, you (and everyone else) would work a little harder to make sure that if you end up on the bottom rung, that ladder is not greased down by neglected school districts, underpaid teachers and minimalist resources.
This approach to looking at the most underprivileged school districts is non-partisan and unaffiliated with any political powerhouse – it is fact. Politicians and administrators are unable to reflect positively on such situations as:
low income children are six times more likely to drop out of school (NCES)
low-income children master basic reading skills under half the average rate
low-income children have higher rates of illiteracy
students learning from D teachers learn 50% less than from A teachers
We are called to a two-fold action: expand school choice options for all parents and completely overhaul the resource development and compensation system for teachers.
The status-quo has divorced teacher compensation, promotion and retention from any recognition of merit. We now have the ability to judge and recognize teacher performance fairly, on a value-added basis. Schools have an enormous potential to improve if they will truly treat talented teachers as professionals rather than factory workers.
Likewise, our limited experiments with parental choice mechanisms have shown an ability to improve education for both those choosing to leave, and those choosing to stay.
Answer one final multiple choice question.
Place yourself back in Twelfth Grade. Given the chance to choose any of the following options for your personal schooling, select the education you would like to receive for the greatest chance of success later in life:
A. Ivy League
B. Any Top University
C. The Perfect Match, Post-Secondary School for Your Learning Abilities and Future Goals
D. any of the above is fine
Was your answer D?
Here is the ultimate question.
What needs to happen to reform our educational system such that any child who began with the first multiple choice question would be able to have the final multiple choice question?
Answer: by putting student interests first. Until we do so, the lottery will remained fixed against disadvantaged children.
Matthew Ladner is Vice President of Research at the Goldwater Institute
June 05, 2007
Students Would Benefit from Diverse Virtual Schools (Sarah Brodsky)
What kind of student enrolls in a course online? It could be someone who needs to do remedial work, or a student who wants to study more challenging material at a higher grade level. Students who are home schooled, whose high schools don’t offer advanced placement courses, who want to take an additional foreign language, or who just want to work at their own pace might all benefit from virtual school. These students are each looking for different things when they sign up for online courses. But under Missouri’s current Virtual Instruction Program, they have to settle for one-size-fits-all online instruction.
Continue reading "Students Would Benefit from Diverse Virtual Schools (Sarah Brodsky)" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)May 25, 2007
Spare Us the Spin (Neal McCluskey)
Last week, when I heard that the new National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics and U.S. history results were about to be released, my curiosity was piqued. No, not in anticipation of finding out whether the results would be dismal or dismal-er, but because I really wanted to see how the Bush administration would handle the news, good or bad. Schools aren’t held accountable for civics and U.S. history under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and I couldn’t wait to see how the administration would somehow tie the results to its favorite law.
Continue reading "Spare Us the Spin (Neal McCluskey)" »
Posted by Featured Guest at 07:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
